Here is something from the Goodfellow article on the nature of the Sun.
" Put simply, plasma is a super-hot gas in which electrons are stripped away
from protons. When placed in the vicinity of a magnetic field, particles of
like polarity interact with, and reinforce the field. The magnetic force is
1 X 10 to the 39 times stronger than the original gravitational force. The
observation that plasmas align and reinforce magnetic fields is at odds with
the fusion/core theories which rest on the assumption that the mutual
gravitational attraction of the Sun's individual atoms override all other
acting forces. "
Is this because magnetic fields have positive charges and gravitational
fields have negative ones?
In the first line, where Goodfellow mentions stripping electrons from
protons, does that mean that the atom would remain without any electrons, or
that just the protons would be without electrons?
I ask because on page 143 of The Awesome life Force, Cater says that "
Stripping electrons from an atom will give it a strong positive charge. This
means it [ the atom ] will have greater inertia than before."
Then what relationship does the plasma of the Sun have with a negative
gravitational field?
Here is something from the Goodfellow article on the nature of the Sun.
" Put simply, plasma is a super-hot gas in which electrons are stripped away
from protons. When placed in the vicinity of a magnetic field, particles of
like polarity interact with, and reinforce the field. The magnetic force is
1 X 10 to the 39 times stronger than the original gravitational force. The
observation that plasmas align and reinforce magnetic fields is at odds with
the fusion/core theories which rest on the assumption that the mutual
gravitational attraction of the Sun's individual atoms override all other
acting forces. "
Is this because magnetic fields have positive charges and gravitational
fields have negative ones?
Magnetic fields have no positive or negative charge. Charge is related to electrostatics, not magnetism. And remember also that gravity is an extremely week force.
In the first line, where Goodfellow mentions stripping electrons from
protons, does that mean that the atom would remain without any electrons, or
that just the protons would be without electrons?
Your question is a little confusing. Wouldn't the atom and the protons be the same in this context? It's a point to consider that Goodfellow subscribe to the theory of just one electron to the proton. So with this he will conclude that the proton will have no electrons left.
I ask because on page 143 of The Awesome life Force, Cater says that "
Stripping electrons from an atom will give it a strong positive charge. This
means it [ the atom ] will have greater inertia than before."
Then what relationship does the plasma of the Sun have with a negative
gravitational field?
I don't think it's correct to call it a *negative gravitational field*. It's almost the same as saying * photonic light ray*. Maybe I am a little picky here? I don't think that there is a direct relationship between the plasma of the sun and the gravitational field other then that the light produced later becomes gravity radiation duo to the law of redistribution of energy. Remember that Cater claim that the surface gravitation of the sun is less then what we have here on earth.
I think that Goodfellow mean that the plasma of the sun is an main element in keeping the planets in orbit, meaning that huge structures of plasma kind of envelope our solar system and thus make it an unit. Cater never wrote about the magnetic field properties of fast moving plasma. I think that the structures in the universe has as much to do with plasma as it has to do with gravity radiation. It will be highly rewarding to take a better look at plasma physics through the glasses of Cater's soft particles physics, me thinks.
Frode
ยทยทยท
Dean
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buy Long Distance with your GROUP and SAVE!!! http://click.egroups.com/1/4123/9/_/_/_/962321918/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From The Awesome Life Force of Joseph H. Cater, page 179. This is with
reference to how Clouds defy gravity.
A paradox seems to exist with regards to clouds. They consist of small water
droplets that do not fall. From the standpoint of the properties of water
just presented, they should fall. Every water droplet is attached to a dust
particle. This dust particle absorbs a high concentration of negative
charges from the water. The particle would levitate upward, were it were not
for the water droplet holding it down. If the amount of water around this
dust particle exceeds the critical amount, the droplet will fall as rain.
Outer space is permeated with fine dust that continually replaces the dust
taken out of the atmosphere by precipitation. Ths dust is vital to
sustaining life on a planet. Without it, there would be little or no
precipitation.
Under certain conditions, water can lose weight and even levitate.
Ex-periments have shown that water, when ejected in the form of fine jets,
will start to levitate after falling a certain distance. Also, the fine
spray resulting from waterfalls often has a tendency to levitate upwards.
This phenomenon has puzzled many observers. By now, the reason is obvious.
for a reader of his book ] Such conditions cause the water droplets to be
impregnated with an inor-dinate concentration of soft electrons [ of a
negative charge ].